Hobby Lobby intends to defy Obamacare

[blottomsup]

Single payer. It's the correct answer.

[itpdude]

Single payer. It's the correct answer.

Yes.

[TelegramSam]

I have to say, I'm Catholic, and if it weren't for jerk offs like Hobby Lobby CEO I would be a registered Republican. But, I'm an independent, because of the idiot grand standing that actual Republicans with power in the party do. There are a ton of Catholic owned businesses fighting this the right way, in the courts, instead of using it for PR. If he really cared about the issues involved (which I think are totally legitimate) he could donate money to one of the legal groups and bring attention to the fact that they are taking this to the Supreme Court. My bet is that he uses this as a platform to run for office down the road, honestly.

[itpdude]

I have to say, I'm Catholic, and if it weren't for jerk offs like Hobby Lobby CEO I would be a registered Republican. But, I'm an independent, because of the idiot grand standing that actual Republicans with power in the party do. There are a ton of Catholic owned businesses fighting this the right way, in the courts, instead of using it for PR. If he really cared about the issues involved (which I think are totally legitimate) he could donate money to one of the legal groups and bring attention to the fact that they are taking this to the Supreme Court. My bet is that he uses this as a platform to run for office down the road, honestly.

Very interesting perspective.

I don't know if this thing is a simple PR stunt, but you make some points.

[PI Nate]

Forcing people to violate everything they hold dear at gun point is what freedom is all about.

God bless America...

[Bababaloney]

Is the CEO barring any employee now, or is he planning to bar any employee in the future, from taking the morning-after pill?

No. Therefore it is not an obstruction of freedom.

Under your logic, if you lock the doors to your house, you are obstructing the freedom of others to enter your house.

He's not barring any employee from taking it, but by not allowing it to be paid for in the health care benefit, he's discriminating. Let's say the plan does pay for psychotherapy for those women who decide to keep a child but have psychological trauma from the choice, he is in essence discriminating against certain employees.

Face facts, in this guy's twisted mind, this is NOT about principles...Instead he's just granstanding...It's quite obvious...

[Bababaloney]

Single payer. It's the correct answer.

I never thought this was the right choice in the past, but the more I see the right demonize anything which takes power and money from the insurance lobby, I'm thinking more and more that you're correct.

[itpdude]

He's not barring any employee from taking it, but by not allowing it to be paid for in the health care benefit, he's discriminating. Let's say the plan does pay for psychotherapy for those women who decide to keep a child but have psychological trauma from the choice, he is in essence discriminating against certain employees.

Face facts, in this guy's twisted mind, this is NOT about principles...Instead he's just granstanding...It's quite obvious...

I don't know the guy's intent and neither do you.

And even if his intent were to grandstand, two things: We could say the same thing about, say, MLK or Rosa Parks with their civil-disobedience.

Two: Grandstanding or not, a principle is a principle. If a businessman doesn't want to participate in something that is against his value system, we cannot claim businessmen are reasonably free of government encumbrance.

We can all agree there are certain things in need of regulation to protect employees. Workplace safety rules and the such. However, things like requiring a business to provide a heath insurance policy that must give morning-after pills to employees who want them through the insurance is a bridge too far.

This is no hard-and-fast rule as one could say, "well, if an employee wants to distribute KKK material at work, he ought be protected by the first amendment" or "well, if an employer wants to pay less than minimum wage, it ought to be his prerogative." There is a balance and this provision is, in my opinion, an affront to the moral and ethical sensibilities of some employers.

It's too damn much. What would we say if we required all businesses to open the day with 10 seconds of prayer? One could reasonably say that 10 seconds of prayer doesn't impede the profit-making ability of a business, so why not?

Just how far do we want to take this?

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

So if they have a different opinion, they are "freaks" and "tards"? And liberals love to call Conservatives close-minded.

Yeah, let's look up your posts to see how many times you've written "stupid libbies" and "libtards."

[tHISisKiSSeL]

so now i know not to ever buy anything from hobby lobby.

[Willy Pfister]

Single payer. It's the correct answer.

How about you pay your bills and I'll pay mine? K?

[itpdude]

Yeah, let's look up your posts to see how many times you've written "stupid libbies" and "libtards."

Has he said that kind of thing before?

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

Has he said that kind of thing before?

Only to me, about 8 times before I put him on ignore.

[tHISisKiSSeL]

where can the line be drawn on the religious objections? some wackjobs believe in no medical intervention for anything, ever.

[niska24de]

That said, in what is supposed to be a free country, shouldn't it be the prerogative of individuals and businesses whether they want to participate explicitly in a program they find reprehensible? What victory is it for freedom, the freedom to live your life according to your values, when the US government wants to force a company to provide a type of health-insurance they believe to be evil?

Well said, sir. Rep up for this one.

The ones who are going to get fucked (I am getting fucked as we speak by my co's healthcare changes) are people like you and I. Won't affect the rich and it wont affect the Tyrone's, Jamal's and the illegals.

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

I love how everyone is complaining about the ever-ballooning cost of health care and this one little pill (RU486) can save our health costs millions but noooooo.

We'd rather spend our money on abstinence and when that fails, we'll pay for the costs associated with raising a child.

[blottomsup]

How about you pay your bills and I'll pay mine? K?

If you have health insurance and what you get out of it exceeds what you put into it, you are paying other people's medical bills.

Edit. Strike that. Reverse it.

[ohmicah]

I'm more concerned about the rumored mandatory microchip provision of "Obamacare".

[1Vegasgirl]

Single payer. It's the correct answer.

Until you are unable to get what you want or need and all other options are gone.

Government takeover for our medical care choices is not the correct answer.

[blottomsup]

Until you are unable to get what you want or need and all other options are gone.

Government takeover for our medical care choices is not the correct answer.

"Until you are unable to get what you want or need" is a scare tactic. There is no proof that people will be unable to get health care simply because the government pays for it instead of some insurance company.

"All other options are gone" = I don't know what you mean by this. If you mean that there will be no doctors willing to treat people for private pay, that seems unlikely. If there's money to be made somewhere, someone will be around to make it.

"Government takeover for our medical care choices is not the correct answer." = Again, I don't know what you mean by this. The government wouldn't "take over" medical treatment options. Treatment options are dictated by medical conditions. That won't change.